HAMPSHIRE COUNTY FARMERS' MONTHLY 



CO-OPERATIVE MILK 



MARKETING 



Facts Concerning the Dairy Business 

 Which Farmers Should Know 



The cooperative marketing of milk on 

 a New England wide basis is one of the 

 livest questions before the dairymen of 

 Hampshire County to-day. A committee 

 was elected at a conference held in Ver- 

 mont to work out a plan. The New Eng- 

 land Homestead asked farmers to vote 

 if it was time something should be done 

 about the dairy situation. About 5,000 

 of the 70,000 farmers in New England 

 voted yes. 



The committee appointed in Vei-mont 

 has completed a plan of organization. 

 With a few exceptions, this committee has 

 acted as incorporators of the New Eng- 

 land Dairy System. Dairymen will .soon 

 be asked to sign a contract which binds 

 them to deliver their milk to the System 

 for a period of five years. 



It is every dairymen's business to read 

 the contract and by-laws before signing 

 rather than after. The plan of the com- 

 mittee is to use paid solicitors to get the 

 contracts signed. They are apt to offer 

 many impossible things to get signatures. 

 Regardless of oral promises, the only 

 thing that will count will be the printed 

 matter in the contract and by-laws. The 

 contract to be used mu.st be binding. 

 Similar contracts have been upheld by the 

 supreme courts in several states. 



Causes of Lower Prices 



At the present time dairymen need 

 facts about the dairy business rather 

 than propaganda. To-day both can be 

 had but largely the latter. We have 

 made an honest eifort to assemble facts 

 which are pertinent just now. The fol- 

 lowing statements are based on the New 

 England Dairy Report published by the 

 United States Department of Agriculture 

 through the Wakefield (Mass.) office on 

 February 21, 1924. 



From January, 1920 to January, 1924 

 there was an increase of 26,089 dairy 

 cows in New England. The following 

 is the increase by states : Vermont, 

 17,844; Massachusetts, 10,47.5; Connecti- 

 cut, 2,94.5; New Hampshire, 1,164. 

 Maine alone decreased 6,605 cows. This 

 increased number of cows has caused in- 

 creased production. Fluid milk was sold 

 at so much higher prices than milk would 

 bring when turned into butter and other 

 by-products that competition for the fluid 

 milk market was increased to the break- 

 ing point. Under these conditions a drop 

 in the price of fluid milk was inevitable. 



Who Produces Surplus 



"Southern New England is distinctly 

 a region that con.sumes fluid milk and 

 most of the milk produced here for sale 



goes as fluid milk. Of the milk produced in 

 Maine, about 20 per cent goes for house- 

 hold consumption within or without the 

 state; in New Hampshire about 45 per 

 cent; in Vermont 25 per cent, while in 

 Connecticut it is about 75 per cent." In 

 other words, the following states are pro- 

 ducing surplus: Maine 80 per cent; Ver- 

 mont 75 per cent; New Hampshire 55 

 per cent; Connecticut 25 per cent. While 

 no figures are available for this state, it 

 is reasonable to suppose that surplus runs 

 little or no higher than in Connecticut. 



Cost of Production 



"Lowest production usually comes in 

 November probably for each state here 

 and other parts of the country. Milk 

 production then increases till the peak is 

 reached about May or June, then falls 

 off irregularly till September and rises 

 sliglitly in Octobei-. Maine and Vermont 

 cut down on milk production in winter 

 when costs of production are higher. In 

 the states producing the least surplus, 

 the market calls for a more nearly con- 

 stant supply, the milking period per cow 

 is longer, grain feeding greater and cows 

 in low pioduction or dry are more promt- 

 ly replaced by cows in high production." 

 All of the.se things cost money and par- 

 tially explain why production costs here 

 are higher than in northern New Eng- 

 land. 



A man high up in a successful coopera- 

 tive marketing organization recently said 

 that to succeed, this movement must be 

 economically sound. If it is, it will be 

 a great thing for the dairymen of New 

 England. If it is not, it will take a 

 generation to get over the ill effects. He 

 further stated that cooperative market- 

 ing would not pay all a profit for their 

 product. It will pay the efficient pro- 

 ducers handsomely, the medium producers 

 fair returns, the poor pioducers less than 

 cost of production. These statements 

 coming from a man who has not only 

 been a close student of cooperative effort 

 but also actively engaged in the work 

 should carry weight. 



H. B. Sweet has an article on page 

 696 of Hoards Dairyman, May 23, 1924, 

 in which he points out two facts concern- 

 ing cooperative efforts which he says have 

 not been sufficiently emphasized : 



"(1) Cooperation among milk pro- 

 rliifcnv can not maintain profitiiblv prices 

 in the face of an over-supj>l!/. Facts 

 given above show that there is an over- 

 supply of fluid milk in the markets at 

 the present time. It is up to the indi- 

 vidual farmer to remedy this matter 

 rather than to look toward coojjeration 

 as a cure all. j 



"(2) Ally plan for cooperation among 

 milk jtroducers m,nst be capable of rea- 

 sonabh/ successful operation until a mem- 

 bership of but a small part of the total 

 number of producers in the territory 

 covered. In other words monopoly con- 



tiol .should not be necessary for success. 

 If the plan is economically sound, it will 

 not be necessary to .sign up practically 

 eveiy producer in the section." 



What Others Think of the Pool 



It is a matter of record that the com- 

 mittee was not unanimous in recommend- 

 ing the present plan. The following is 

 quoted from page 70.3 of the Rural New 

 Yorker for April 26, 1924 and shows 

 what this paper thinks of the proposed 

 New England System. 



"A committee recently appointed at an 

 all-New England dairy conference con- 

 sidered two proposed forms of dairy or- 

 ganizations to handle New England milk 

 at a meeting on April 11 in Boston. One 

 suggestion was to organize a larger as- 

 sociation to cover all New England with 

 centralized control and ownership of 

 plants and implements of distribution. 

 The other plan presented was a federa- 

 tion of many small local associations now 

 existing and to be organized. This plan 

 was advocated by E. S. Brigham, the 

 popular Commissioner of Agriculture of 

 Vermont. A majority of the committee, 

 however, favored the centralized plan. 



The New England committee could 

 profitably study the history of centralized 

 associations before finally adopting this 

 form. This form failed utterly in Ore- 

 gon, it is now in the throes of a second 

 failure in Chicago, and it has not kept 

 members together in New i ork. It has 

 no record of permanent success wherever 

 tried out, either in Europe or America. 



The successful farm cooperative ex- 

 perience the world over has been under 

 the form of organization recommended 

 by Commissionei- Bi-igham. His plan is 

 built from the ground up. It starts with 

 the farmer, and he controls it from be- 

 ginning to finish. It is simple in form, 

 and easily managed. In control of it 

 themselves, farmers are in a position to 

 keep down expenses and to avoid extrava- 

 gance. The simple machinery of the or- 

 ganization is operated with little expen.se. 

 It is a success all over Europe and in 

 many parts of America. 



Before the plan of federated local as- 

 sociations is abandoned, it would be a 

 democratic plan to give New England 

 dairymen an opportunity to study the 

 merits of both plans, and then through a 

 referendum allow them to decide the 

 form they want for themselves. This is 

 true co-opeiative practice. It is the only 

 way to 'do it ourselves.' " 



A plan of organization similar to that 

 proposed for New England is being ad- 

 vanced for dairymen in Wiscon.sin. 

 Hoards Dairyman of April 25, 1924, takes 

 a viewpoint similar to that given above. 

 It quotes paragraphs from the official 

 paper of the Oiegon Dairymen's league 

 concerning the reasons for their failure 

 as follows: 



"Sound, constructive business essen- 

 Conlimicd on page 9, column 1 



